There is Direct Evidence of Gen 1, and none for the Big Bang & Human Evolution.

[RBD]

Normally it's us believers in creation of the universe and man by God, that have to answer to unbelievers. But what about the believers in a universe and man made without God. Shouldn't they also have to answer to us unbelievers? Yes, of course, especially since Gen 1 is stated as fact, while the Big Bang and human evolution are not stated as fact, but only theory.

That fact alone alone proves any universe and man made without God, is not a factual argument. Where no fact is claimed, there is no fact to be argued. Only where fact is claimed, can there be any argument of fact.

In the factual argument of Gen 1, there is daily direct evidence of God's creating all the stars set apart from one another, God creating men and women in His own image: The universe of stars are self-evidently set apart from one another, and are never in the same place at any time. And, all men and women are self-evidently set apart from all animals, and are never the same creature at any time.

In the theoretical argument of the Big Bang and human evolution, there is no direct evidence of all the stars ever being in the same place at their beginning, nor of any man or woman ever being a male or female ape from our beginning. There is no evidence of a Big Bang starting place, nor of an ape-man or woman.

Gen 1 states as fact, that in their beginning God creates all the stars, as lights of an expansive universe turned on all at the same time. This is daily seen in the universe. While, the Big Bang is stated as a theory alone, that all the stars began as an explosion of light from one place. This was never seen nor proven by direct evidence of the event.

Gen 1 also states as fact, that in our own beginning God creates all men and women in His own image, as persons uniquely different from all animals. While the human evolution theory, states that all persons began as a birth of man from ape. That was never seen nor proven by direct evidence of the event.

There's more in-depth clarification to follow, if anyone wants to take a look. But, the argument is as self-explanatory, as it is self-evident. (Unless of course anyone can show any error in the argument, whether with the explanation and/or the facts and theories as stated...)

[POI]

Those who keep the fence where it belongs, are then accused of rejecting 'evolution'.

Those who (re-invent/re-define) speciation, common ancestry, and xenotransfusions are objectively guilty of committing fallacious reasoning.

Those who accuse opposition without proof, hate opposition.

Those who avoid the obvious are in denial. I explained ad nauseum, what these terms represent. And since you do not appreciate repeating myself, I'm doing you a favor right now. So please re-read what these terms actually represent and then explain why you are instead making up your own terms.

[POI]

1. Homo sapiens have been on this planet way longer than the projected 6K years. Which means you must now pivot accordingly.

I haven't answered this one yet.

Or maybe you don't have an adequate answer, and skipped it, as this topic was addressed more than 200 posts ago now...

At this time I don't. It doesn't have anything to do with the topic of people created in the image of God, vs primate-human evolution.

My response is in direct rebuttal to your assertion that humans have only been around for ~6K years. I'm simply recapping some of your failed attempts. Don't make assertions, especially in a debating forum, for which you cannot back up.

If the human skeletal remains are indeed about 9,000 years ago, then the Bible timeline is challenged by 3,000 years.

Which means theists might just move the goalposts.

Once quick google search shows the most hits for Cheddar Man being a black Brit. Which is reported by science journalists, referencing other journalists, which already shows an ideological corruption of the discovery.

The ironic thing here is that you keep referencing the concept of ideology. I am not an ideologue. But you, on the other hand, definitely are. I simply follow the evidence, wherever it leads me. To continue to adhere to the notion/conclusion that humans have only been here ~6k years takes quite a bit of ingested ideological corruption. So I have to wonder...? Where do you get your info, regarding the concept in favor of a young earth, young humans, as well as macroevolution denial?.?.? Enquiring minds really want to know?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #417]

If someone really believes humans are animals, they ought believe in talking animals...Just to be consistent.

Do you believe that there's a talking snake in Genesis?

There's enough circumstantial evidence for someone to believe primate-human evolution. There's also enough evidence for someone to believe man created in God's image, separate from all the animals of the earth.

You refer to the biblical account of the sudden creation of humans as "enough evidence" while dismissing the evidence of human evolution as "circumstantial".

Your response is the opposite of what I said.

There's enough circumstantial evidence for someone to believe primate-human evolution. There's also enough evidence for someone to believe man created in God's image, separate from all the animals of the earth.

My response is in perfect accord with what you said.


If we had no evolutionary relation to the great apes, we would have 23 pairs of unfused chromosomes as a signpost shouting out, "Look! These guys are different! No evolution going on here!"

False. For the committed ideologue, the shout would be, "Look! These guys are only different by one! Plenty of evolution going on here!"

Otherwise, "Look. 23 pairs are 24. Humans are not primates, nor proven evolved from primates."

And here another argument comes into play against primate-human evolution: All primates having 24 chromosomes, includes all speciated members of the primate family. I.e. the scientific rule of primate speciation is 24 chromosome pairs. Humans having 23 pairs are by rule excluded from primate speciation.

Humans, with 23 chromosome pairs, cannot possibly be a speciated primate of 24 pairs.

What makes us primates is:
hands adapted for grasping
nails instead of claws
most are omnivorous
relatively large brain
fewer offspring than other animals
bony ridges to protect larger eyes
capable of using tools

Our fused chromosome #2 has an inactive centromere corresponding to chimpanzee chromosome #13. The very fact that the fusion is there shows that our 23 chromosome pairs used to be 24 pairs.


Instead, we have a pair of chimpanzee chromosomes fused within us where they still have those chromosomes separate.

Presumptive ideological narrative.

Translation: you don't like it.


*If we had been suddenly created to walk upright, we should have feet more like those of ostriches [which evolved from bipedal dinosaurs].

Convoluted ideological narrative.

Translation: you don't like it.


Instead, our feet have the structure of a second pair of hands which we would have used before we became bipeds.

Circular ideological narrative.

Translation: you still don't like it.

The ostrich foot has eight bones----far better suited to walking upright than all those footfinger bones in our second pair of hands.

You once demanded evidence of animals being less spiritual than us, and I told you to ask any animal. Did you? If so, what did they say? Of course, if you didn't even try, then you already know the answer like the rest of us normally intelligent human beings: By nature talking humans are not babbling baboons...

"Baboon troops have complex social dynamics, and vocalizations play an important role in communication. Baboon calls can convey a range of different messages, and include predator warnings, establishing hierarchy, signaling anger or frustration, and conveying friendly intention and submission."
https://wildambience.com/wildlife-sounds/chacma-baboon/

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #420]

Thinking evolutionary in order to surmise evolution, is obviously circular.

Looking at the evidence of evolution leads to thinking evolutionary.

We do walk uprightly, without any evidence of humans ever not, and we don't have ostrich feet because of it. A second pair of hands helps primates to climb trees, which is where many of them mainly lived. Humans don't, nor is there any evidence we ever did.

The evidence is literally in our bones, and simply denying it won't make it go away.

Our big toes are clearly made for balance and maneuverability to walk and run on feet.

Then why aren't all of our toes Big Toes? Why do our toes diminish in size as they go to the outside of the foot----like fingers?

[RBD]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #4]

Scientists do not have a robust in the beginning. The burden of proof is not on the one who believes the universe came from something. The burden of proof is on the one who says the universe came from nothing.

This is exactly true. Well done.

The creationist has the burden of proof of nothing becoming something, if trying to prove it scientifically. If not. Then creationists can only prove there is no science forbidding the Gen 1 account of universal creation, and with man in the image of God. It remains a matter of faith for creation. However, it's also a matter of faith for origin of species by evolution.

The problem is for the evolutionist: Origin of anything by evolution is self-contradictory, since there can't be any original beginning by evolution. There can only be evolution from what was to something different: Only creation can originate. Evolution can only differentiate. Therefore, universal evolutionism demands universal eternity. Origin by evolution can only be with an eternal universe without beginning, as well as without ending, since something also cannot become nothing.

And this is the universal evolutionist's Achilles heel, especially when it comes to something intelligent and self aware: Human beings. Since nothing cannot become something, which is creationism, then the origin evolutionist must accept not only eternal matter, but also eternal intelligent being. Else, a personal exception must be made to the rule of nothing cannot become something. Which then accepts creationism.

And if, the intelligent self-aware being is not apart from the universe of matter, then we have good old pagan universal deism of primordial gods and natural spirits:

Sing! O eternal Erebus, Ananke, father Ouranus, mother Gaia, and Nyx, everlasting and all providing, thou art worthy for thou art from everlasting to everlasting, and we art also thine offspring...And hail! Our brothers and sisters of earthborn gods and nymphs of the spring, for we too are their offspring!


Universal evolution must account not only for matter and life without beginning, but also for self-aware intelligence, who is forever part of the universe of matter and life.

There are only two possibilities for a physical universe and intelligent self-awareness: Either the eternal Creator creates universal and unaware matter from nothing, as well as people with intelligent living souls. Or, the universe of matter is an eternal intelligent, self-aware, and living being, with people on earth being equally aware: Bible creationism with a universal beginning, or universal deism without the universe ever beginning, nor ending.

And since neither is scientifically proven, then either can be believed. So far as faith is concerned, the creationist does not have to prove creation of something from nothing, nor does the universal deist have to proven something has always been evolving and ever shall be...

A universe of evolving matter from everlasting, and unintelligent unaware matter evolving into intelligent self-aware beings, is not possible for the origin evolutionist: That becomes something from nothing. Evolutionists can try and argue origin of species by evolution (which in itself is a self-contradictory misnomer), but their burden of proof is in origin of intelligence, if they reject being universal deists, and humans being eternally aware souls.

[RBD]

Those who keep the fence where it belongs, are then accused of rejecting 'evolution'.

Those who (re-invent/re-define) speciation, common ancestry, and xenotransfusions are objectively guilty of committing fallacious reasoning.

Those who accuse opposition without proof, hate opposition.

Those who avoid the obvious are in denial. I explained ad nauseum, what these terms represent. And since you do not appreciate repeating myself, I'm doing you a favor right now. So please re-read what these terms actually represent and then explain why you are instead making up your own terms.

Correct. You keep repeating your own alternative definitions. So what.

If you want to show where my definitions are wrong, then quote show specifically where and how. In the meantime, I'll keep mine, and you're welcome to your own personal alternatives...

[RBD]

Where do you get your info, regarding the concept in favor of a young earth, young humans,

You either need to focus on a specific argument, and not jump to conclusions. Or, you're purposely mixing two different arguments together, in order to make the specific argument appear wrong at the start: The Bible timeline I argue is only for 'young' humans, animals, and present plant life on earth, that begins after Gen 1:3. The argument is not about the age of the universe and the earth.

There's a Bible 'gap' theory between Gen 1:1 and 1:3, that I'm convinced of, where any amount of time may have passed between the beginning creation of the heaven and earth in 1:1, and the beginning days of creation of present animals and humans in 1:3. With 1:2, there was obviously a universally cataclysmic event, that separates the creation of the universe, and the beginning days of creation on earth. The Bible says Day 1 begins at 1:3, not at 1:1, nor 1:2.

So far as the 'young' plant, animals, and human life on earth, the Bible timeline of about 6000 years, is from Bible genealogical and verified historical records. If in fact there is scientific proof of 9000 year old human skeletal remains, then the Bible timeline after Gen 1:3 for the beginning of animals and men on this earth, is in question.

Reconciliation requires that either the Bible genealogy allows for more time, or the skeletal record allows for less time, or both.

As I've said, there's already race ideology swirling around Cheddar man. It doesn't mean the age of the skeletal remains isn't correct.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with disproving Gen 1 account of life creation on earth, including people in God's image. Nor would it prove any error in the Bible itself, if the traditional dating with genealogy and historical record is incorrect by several thousand years.

All that's being challenged here, is that 'traditional interpretation of Bible timeline from Gen 1:3 to present.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #417]

If someone really believes humans are animals, they ought believe in talking animals...Just to be consistent.

Do you believe that there's a talking snake in Genesis?

The challenge is to the 'humans are animals' believers. Once again, do you not believe in any animal talking? If not, then how can humans be animals, if animals can't talk?

If you sidestep to how baboons babble, birds chirp, and whales sing, then no person can be any animal, that can't talk.

You once demanded evidence of animals being less spiritual than us, and I told you to ask any animal. Did you? If so, what did they say? Of course, if you didn't even try, then you already know the answer like the rest of us normally intelligent human beings: By nature talking humans are not babbling baboons...

Baboon troops have complex social dynamics, and vocalizations play an important role in communication.

If this is your answer, then the above applies.

[RBD]

Our big toes are clearly made for balance and maneuverability to walk and run on feet.

Then why aren't all of our toes Big Toes? Why do our toes diminish in size as they go to the outside of the foot----like fingers?
[/quote]
Just as similarities never make a match between humans and apes, so with hands and feet. Fingers and toes are similar too, but fingers are not toes and vica versa.

Also, fingers enlarge in size away from the thumbs. And 'foot fingers' 'hand toes' is ideological gibberish. And yet, though similar to babbling baboons, it's still human talk, that no animal on earth can do.

[bluegreenearth]

Note: This post is addressed to the general audience and not to any particular individual.

The difference between a theist's life-long faith in an unfalsifiable claim and a scientist's tentative acceptance of a falsifiable claim is that the falsifiable claim was testable and continues to survive when challenged with new experiments while the unfalsifiable claim is not testable at all. The moment theists find themselves unable to identify a quantity and/or quality of any type of reasonably obtainable evidence that they would accept as sufficient to disprove a particular claim contained within their holy book, they have encountered the Unfalsifiability Problem. Because it is not possible for them to ever test these unfalsifiable claims, theists are compelled by a religious commitment to maintain a life-long hope and/or trust (i.e., faith) that those otherwise unbelievable ideas are not false. At the same time, scientists do not require faith to tentatively accept a rigorously tested falsifiable claim. This is because tentative acceptance does not entail an emotional and/or intellectual committent to maintaining hope and/or trust in the claim but an understanding that it may become justifiable to abandon the falsifiable idea if it is ultimately disproved by a future discovery of the expected disconfirming evidence.

In other words, scientists do not provisionally accept a falsifiable claim because they are hoping and/or trusting it is true but because it has been demonstrated to survive all the tests that were designed to possibly disprove it. As such, if new evidence emerges in the future to disconfirm the falsifiable claim, scientists are not obligated by a faith commitment to continue defending the hypothesis but are best positioned to immediately reject it and move on to consider other testable ideas. Meanwhile, theists must defer to hope and/or trust in the truth of various unfalsifiable religious claims because there is no possible way for them to discover if any of those ideas are false.

Furthermore, many theists tend to become emotionally and intellectually invested in the unfalsifiable religious ideas for which they could possibility be mistaken. This increases the probability that a theist will commit a Sunk Cost Fallacy when defending those claims against legitimate objections. Of course, individual scientists and some of their advocates could also become emotionally and intellectually invested in a particular claim and potentially commit a Sunk Cost Fallacy when defending it. However, it is far less likely that those individuals will refuse to abandon or modify their belief after the corresponding scientific hypothesis has been demonstrably falsified by the expected disconfirming evidence. Sure, those people may feel extremely disappointed and maybe a little embarrassed for having invested a significant portion of their identity in a claim that turned-out to be false, but at least they will retain their dignity by having the intellectual honesty to acknowledge where they were mistaken and embrace this new opportunity to discover an even better explanation.

Therefore, the theists and all others who object to the provisional acceptance of a particular falsifiable scientific claim have an obligation to provide the necessary disconfirming evidence if they intend to disprove it. It is not a legitimate rebuttal for them to merely assert that the scientific claim is not acceptable until it is "proven true" by the evidence because this ignores the problem of Underdetermination and is not how the scientific method works. Falsifiable claims are never proven true by scientific evidence but are rigorously tested to determine if the available evidence is sufficient to reasonably reject them. Even though many science communicators may colloquially refer to a scientific claim as being "proven true" after it fails to be disproven by the available evidence, the fact of the matter is that the hypothesis was not demonstrated to be absolutely true but sufficiently reliable for tentative acceptance as the most reasonable explanation.

So, when encountering theists who demand evidence that will "prove" a particular scientific claim is "true" to their satisfaction, the only appropriate response is to remind them of how science does not insist the hypothesis is absolutely true. Otherwise, to engage with their unreasonable demand by submitting various examples of compelling evidence is to share in and perpetuate the theist's reasoning error. Instead, the theist must be asked to identify the evidence that scientists should expect to find if the specified claim is false and to provide the required disconfirming evidence in accordance with the scientific method. If the theist is unable to identify and subsequently provide the expected disconfirming evidence, then the tentative acceptance of the specified scientific claim as the most reasonable explanation remains reasonably justified. No further defence is required.